I have linked two sources that attempt to answer the question, “Was Peter the first Pope?” One is a position paper on the subject by the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Fellowship, and the other is an audio podcast from The Most Holy Family Monastery website, a Roman Catholic institution. I would appreciate an ad seriatim critique of each, if possible. Please, everybody let’s keep our finger pointing and theological haughtiness to ourselves, as Paul reminds us, we need to:
If we all do that, then civilized dialogue is possible. I will not publish brain dead comments. Sorry.
Speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Ephesians 4:15
If we all do that, then civilized dialogue is possible. I will not publish brain dead comments. Sorry.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how the first paper addresses Peter's place as the Rock on which Jesus would build his Church. The authors are silent on Matthew 18, which is the only time Jesus speaks directly on the foundation of his Church.
I think the Fathers are unanimous, and the Scriptures presume and establish, that Christ's Church is a visible society in the earth that is governed by men who have been given authority from Christ. This is the exact sense given by the Council Fathers at Constantinople in 383 a.d. when they laid it down as binding on all the faithful to believe in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church". The 'one' here is consistent with Catholic ecclesiology not the Protestant notion of the Church as the ''invisible assembly of the elect". It is also necessarily binding on the faithful to believe that the Bishops themselves were gathered as the leadership of that one Church with authority to clarify definitively the teaching of the Apostles and that this authority came to them through apostolic succession and is found in the episcopacy established by the Apostles.
The organic connection between the Catholic Church of Nicea and Constantinople, the One Church, with that of the Church of the Apostles, is impossible to deny. Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of that See, and martyred in the Coliseum, bears overwhelming witness to the episcopacy, as does Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyons. These were bishops of the One church, which Ignatius, in 107 a.d., called catholic.
It seems to me that the paper conflates the continuation of the "Office of Apostle" with the principle of "apostolic succession". Catholics and Orthodox have never held that those who succeeded the Apostles, and operated with the authority vested to them, we in fact themselves Apostles.
In making this error the paper ignores the case to be made for Apostolic Succession and therefore does not address any substantive idea in its dismissal of 'apostolic succession'.
Perhaps it is not too much to ask that the authors of the paper, in trying to offer a critique of the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of apostolic succession would have the amiable goal of familiarizing themselves with the actual idea of apostolic succession. Defeating straw men is not very interesting. Even when I first began to examine the issue I did not think they were trying to say that the "Office of Apostle" was continued.
What they need to do is to clearly show that they understand what apostolic succession entails and then they can proceed with their attempt to offer a critique. This is always the problem. Understanding precedes judgment.
The gentleman in the audio file demonstrates this quality admirably. He clearly states the position that Protestantism holds regarding Matthew 18, and offers a critique and then an alternative. Agree or disagree he covers the ground properly.
This is the bottom line in all of this Jim, the Catholic Faith proceeds from a formal principle that is different from Protestantism. This means that it is almost impossible for a Protestant to judge Catholicism from within a Protestant epistemology. The only way to ever make a fair judgment in the matter is to learn the Catholic Faith as a mature and informed Catholic understands it, which can be done, and then set that in the balance with Protestantism. Trying to judge piecemeal doctrines and positions will necessarily end in unjust conclusions. Whatever else we can say, the Catholic Faith stands on its own, but one cannot even understand Protestantism without knowing the Catholic Faith because Protestantism is, in its foundation, a rejection of Catholicism. It is derivative. It's beginning is in the early 16th century.
Best,
Bill
Any comments on my article entitled, "Peter as a shepherd"?
ReplyDeleteDid you see me recommendations on Balthasar?
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for the recommendation. Balthazar certainly has a depth of concentration and clarity of purpose that is unusual for a theologian. I have just purchased 2 of his books:
ReplyDelete1. The Theology of Karl Barth (so far it has been excellent!) I don't think I have read a more intelligent writer than Balthazar.
2. The other is "Dare We Hope: With a Short Discourse on Hell," which I am looking forward to reading.
Concerning the later, I have some real issues with the fundamentalist Hell fire and brimstone, sizzling and popping in an eternal lake of fire doctrine for those that have never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel, or make a rational decision on the claims of Christ. I am sorry, that theology just doesn't square with the loving Father I know.
I believe, however, there is a Hell; and yes, I believe there is a Lake of Fire; and yes, I believe that it has been prepared for the Devil and his angels; and yes, I believe that Hell is intended for all those that have not accepted Christ-but my question is, "Is there an alternative?"
Christ, we know, ascended into Hell following his crucifixion, and set captives free, according to the Scripture (1 Peter 2:19). Who were those captives, and how and why were they set free? Is it conceivable that in the vortex of time that would also include future generations of captives trapped in the shackles of unforgiven sin?
Is there an opportunity for them hidden somewhere in the Atonement? The Atonement we know is of an eternal dimension in that a Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world—assuming of course, this is what John meant when he wrote:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8
So, if this be the case, the eternal dimension would cover all of time.
At this point the Scripture is eerily silent, but Peter’s reference suggest that an exception was made in at least this case (whoever is included in this ‘captive’ group). I am confident of this, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV)
So, provision was made for all mankind, if they wish to appropriate it.
Hi Jim.
ReplyDeleteI would be very interested to hear where you disagree with the exegesis of Matthew 18 given in the audio. Did you give this a close hearing?
Regards,
Bill
Actually, I thought the speaker did a very good job. And, yes, to answer your question, I did give it a very close hearing. My Tuesday blog (Sola Scriptura, the Magisteriium, and Papal Infallibility) addressed some of my concerns, and, of course, opinions in general concerning the Roman Catholic position.
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI am having a hard time discerning where you directly engage the case that he makes. Where is he incorrect in his exegesis?
He offers a very detailed and Scripturally supported analysis of why Peter is in fact the Rock on which Jesus would build his Church, where is his analysis false?
Best,
Bill
That Peter was the chief of the Apostles, I think is implicated in Scripture. He certainly takes the lead, and is deferred to as a matter of courtesy and apparent authority-with perhaps, a conditional subservience by Paul. The Apostolic role, as the foundation for the future development of the Church is not the issue. I think that was settled, however, when the repository of faith was embodied in the canon of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteYou will notice in my Sola Scriptura, the Magisteriium, and Papal Infallibility that I address some of my concerns there.
In particular, I said, "History, I find, however is malleable to prejudicial causes. To quote a mutually favorite author “… it is false to say that the Church is founded on Scripture does not justify the counter-assertion that Scripture is founded on the Church.” (The Theology of Barth: Balthazar; p.14)
I fully understand the revanchist attitude of certain Catholic polemicist; however, unless men are willing to dialogue on both sides of the isle with civility and appreciation for another’s point of view, I think we are simply talking to the wind. Authority based on a particular interpretation of a verse of Scripture does not seem to me, at least, to justify superiority to the source of that verification. Why appeal to Scripture at all for the authenticity of such authority, if the final word rest with an infallible Pope anyway?
“All Scripture,” we believe, “is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:15-17 So, what is the primary function of the Church or the Pope if it is not to firstly affirm Scripture? So, in my opinion, the turf of the dialogue is the Scripture, and therefore, doctrinal and theological in nature."
That blog pretty well lays out my convictions on the subject.
Bill, take a look at my latest blog entry, entitled is Pope Benedict a counterfeit Pope?, and give me some feed back. I am serious, this is not a guise couched in a question. I do note, however, that some who accept Apostolic succession and the primacy of the Pope, have differences of opinion.
ReplyDelete